Federer's Backhand

Federer takes his earlier (closer to the baseline) so he doesn't give up court positioning. It might not be as big or have as much spin but just being closer to the baseline opens up the court more and gives him more options. Plus, he has a sick slice. I'd rather take Federer's backhand.

Federer takes his earlier (closer to the baseline) so he doesn't give up court positioning. It might not be as big or have as much spin but just being closer to the baseline opens up the court more and gives him more options. Plus, he has a sick slice. I'd rather take Federer's backhand.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Gasquet stands too far back.
Fed's shot is more versatile.
But they are both beautiful strokes.

Gasquet's backhand, while an impressive shot to watch, seems to compromise his movement. Not only does he stand way back, but it takes a ton of preparation.

Federer can successfully half volley from the baseline if he wants. The only place I'm taking Gasquet's is clay.

Click to expand...

Hamburg 2005 comes to mind when Gasquet beat Federer in that 5 set epic saving match pts (when federer only lost 4 matches all year and the only guy he didn't have match points against was Guga Kuerten in the French Open that year)

Hamburg 2005 comes to mind when Gasquet beat Federer in that 5 set epic saving match pts (when federer only lost 4 matches all year and the only guy he didn't have match points against was Guga Kuerten in the French Open that year)

Click to expand...

So much wrong lol.

Federer lost to Guga in 2004, not 05. He didn't lose to Gasquet in Hamburg it was in Monte Carlo. And he didn't have matchpoints against nadal in the French Open.

Federer's BH is a relative weakness. Gasquet's is an objective strength. I'm pretty sure Federer would prefer to have Gasquet's mechanics. If Gasquet was in the top ten, it's thanks to his BH, in part. His FH is a relative weakness and his serve is rather weak.

Federer's BH is a relative weakness. Gasquet's is an objective strength. I'm pretty sure Federer would prefer to have Gasquet's mechanics. If Gasquet was in the top ten, it's thanks to his BH, in part. His FH is a relative weakness and his serve is rather weak.

Click to expand...

Yeah Federer's BH is a relative weakness. That's because his game is vastly superior superior to Gasquet. That doesn't mean his backhand must be inferior.

Easy to compare when you see them playing a match. Fed's backhand is superior to Gasquet's every time they play. Tho Gasquet has great timing on his backhand it's too topspin oriented and less versatile.

Federer takes his earlier (closer to the baseline) so he doesn't give up court positioning. It might not be as big or have as much spin but just being closer to the baseline opens up the court more and gives him more options. Plus, he has a sick slice. I'd rather take Federer's backhand.

Click to expand...

This...and many other arguments from people who favor Fed's backhand over Gasquet's ... have nothing to do with the stroke itself. The same arguments are used when comparing Fed's backhand with Wawrinka's, and they are frankly excuses.
Fed takes it earlier...because he has better footwork and his game is based on totally different court positioning.
The reason Gasquet stands so far behind the baseline has nothing to do with his backhand stroke. He can take it plenty early when he wants to and when his footwork allows him.
Just watch some of his grass matches...maybe a certain Wimbledon match against Roddick ???
I'd take Gasquet's from these 2 options, but yes...I liked other backhands as well...maybe more than Gasquet's.
From the retired guys...I'd take Korda's, Pavel's, Guga's (maybe Pioline's...which is actually very similar to Guga's/Gasquet's) for example...and from the current guys some good examples were already given...people like Haas, Wawrinka and even Kohlschreiber have close to perfect backhands. Not necessarily better than Gasquet's ... but certainly in the same league.

This...and many other arguments from people who favor Fed's backhand over Gasquet's ... have nothing to do with the stroke itself. The same arguments are used when comparing Fed's backhand with Wawrinka's, and they are frankly excuses.
Fed takes it earlier...because he has better footwork and his game is based on totally different court positioning.
The reason Gasquet stands so far behind the baseline has nothing to do with his backhand stroke. He can take it plenty early when he wants to and when his footwork allows him.
Just watch some of his grass matches...maybe a certain Wimbledon match against Roddick ???
I'd take Gasquet's from these 2 options, but yes...I liked other backhands as well...maybe more than Gasquet's.
From the retired guys...I'd take Korda's, Pavel's, Guga's (maybe Pioline's...which is actually very similar to Guga's/Gasquet's) for example...and from the current guys some good examples were already given...people like Haas, Wawrinka and even Kohlschreiber have close to perfect backhands. Not necessarily better than Gasquet's ... but certainly in the same league.

Almagro has a very good backhand as well, but having seen both him and Gasquet live on clay...frankly...Gasquet's has more work on it.
Gasquet's backhand jumps like crazy even on indoor carpet (yes...I've seen him play live on that surface as well).

P.S. Yes...Gasquet has good footwork, but Federer's is in the "all time great" category from that point of view.

P.P.S When coming up with arguments on "stroke compared to stroke" threads people should understand that court positioning has most of the time little to do with stroke technique.
Murray stands pretty far back as well and it's NOT because he can't take his backhand (or his forehand for that matter) early. It's a choice based on personality/game style, it has pretty much nothing to do with how he hits his backhand.

Edit.
An opposite example to this "far back court positioning" was Andre A. Do people actually think he stood so close to the baseline ALL THE TIME (even when the situation demanded something else) because of his stroke technique and timing only ??
He stood there because he could time the ball well...but ALSO he stood there because he lacked speeed/court coverage. He KNEW that he didn't stand a chance running balls down (something that people like Murray and Gasquet can do very well) from 3-4 meters behind the baseline...so he stood closer and took a chance.
Even when put in defense...and hence the situation would have asked for him to move 2 meters back from his usual positioning he took the gamble of sitting close and swinging at the ball. If somebody could have given him the Murray/Djokovic type of speed and court coverage, he would have chosen very differently in certain situations...you can be certain of that !

Almagro has a very good backhand as well, but having seen both him and Gasquet live on clay...frankly...Gasquet's has more work on it.
Gasquet's backhand jumps like crazy even on indoor carpet (yes...I've seen him play live on that surface as well).

P.S. Yes...Gasquet has good footwork, but Federer's is in the "all time great" category from that point of view.

P.P.S When coming up with arguments on "stroke compared to stroke" threads people should understand that court positioning has most of the time little to do with stroke technique.
Murray stands pretty far back as well and it's NOT because he can't take his backhand (or his forehand for that matter) early. It's a choice based on personality/game style, it has pretty much nothing to do with how he hits his backhand.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Why would players stay behind and therefore give up an advantage for no reason? Most people stay behind because they like to have time on their shots. Why don't we see guys like Agassi or Davydenko stay 10 feet behind the baseline? Becuase they don't need to. Their shots are simple and compact so it's not really necessary. However, if you have bigger swings, you will find it harder to time your shots.

Man, I hate it when people underestimate Gasquet's talent. Just because he dodn't fulfill his promise, it doesn't mean he doesn't have it. The fact that some people consider MONFILS more talented than him is hilarious.

I disagree. Why would players stay behind and therefore give up an advantage for no reason? Most people stay behind because they like to have time on their shots. Why don't we see guys like Agassi or Davydenko stay 10 feet behind the baseline? Becuase they don't need to. Their shots are simple and compact so it's not really necessary. However, if you have bigger swings, you will find it harder to time your shots.

Man, I hate it when people underestimate Gasquet's talent. Just because he dodn't fulfill his promise, it doesn't mean he doesn't have it. The fact that some people consider MONFILS more talented than him is hilarious.

Click to expand...

Haha...funny coincidence, I was actually thinking about the Agassi example before reading your post and gave you an answer in the edited post above. He stood so close to cut angles because he couldn't cover the court.
Davydenko stands so close for some similar reasons and also for some different reasons to Andre A. Similar reasons are to take time away and take the initiative in rallies and then move their opponents side to side.
Different reasons are because Davydenko would lack the power to outhit people from further back. He doesn't have a problem with speed (like Andre did) and as a result, he will actually move back when put on the defensive (at least will do it much more often than Andre did).